George Bush's double standard

[Merlin1047]

This could have gone in any of several forums, but since my basic aim here is to criticize GW, I'll put it into the politics forum.

When Pres. Bush and the Republicans recently rushed to get the Terri Schiavo case into the federal courts, it raised several red-flag issue for me. The actions of the federal government were, in my opinion, a totally inappropriate and dangerous meddling in the court system of the state of Florida. Not only that, the actions of the President and the Congress has had the effect of another power grab for the fed and another erosion of state's rights. Is this now the wave of the future? Will every unpopular decision by a state court end up being usurped by political hacks?

Texas has a law on the books called the "Futile Care" law. The law permits a hospital to stop care for patients who cannot pay for such care if the determination is made that there is no chance that the patient in question can recover from his maladies. Without going into excessive detail, there is a substantial protocol which must be satisfied, including a requirement that the hospital housing the patient must search for another hospital willing to accept him. I believe that it is a good law and that it was carefully written to safeguard indigent patients' rights.

The article which follows documents a recent apprlicantion of the Texas Futile Care Law wherein a baby with extremely serious birth defects was taken off life support against the wishes of its mother who demanded care for the infant, but could not pay for such care. Personally, I agree with the decision and the law. If there is no hope of improvement, why should taxpayer money be spent on care that will ultimately prove not only worthless, but have the effect of simply prolonging suffering?

But here's the kicker - guess which governor of Texas signed this bill into law. If you guessed that his initials were George W. Bush, you would be exactly correct.

Now, how does Pres. Bush reconcile the Futile Care law on the one hand and the unwarranted interference in the court system in regard to the Schiavo case on the other hand?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,0,3939619.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

Baby Removed From Life Support in Texas

By KRISTIE RIEKEN
Associated Press Writer

March 15, 2005, 6:28 PM EST


HOUSTON -- A critically ill 5-month-old was taken off life support and died Tuesday, a day after a judge cleared the way for doctors to halt care they believed to be futile. The infant's mother had fought to keep him alive.

Sun Hudson had been diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder called thanatophoric dysplasia, a condition characterized by a tiny chest and lungs too small to support life. He had been on a ventilator since birth.

Wanda Hudson unsuccessfully fought to continue her son's medical care. She believed he needed time to grow and could eventually be weaned off the ventilator.

"I wanted life for my son," Hudson said Tuesday. "The hospital gave up on him too soon."

Texas law allows hospitals to end life support in cases such as this but requires that families be given 10 days to find another facility to care for the patient. No hospital was found to take the baby.

The ethics committee at Texas Children's Hospital reviewed Sun's case before recommending that life support be stopped. Hospital officials also recommended the case be taken to court and offered to pay Hudson's attorney fees.

"Texas Children's Hospital is deeply saddened to report that Sun Hudson has died," the hospital said in a statement issued Tuesday.

 

[krisy]

It seems kind of hypocritical to me to say it's all right for the government to make a decision for someone to die,but they can't step in to say that a person should live,as in Schiavo's case. A big issue as well is,the government letting Micheal Schaivo say that his "wife" cannot even eat on her own,since she is able to swallow.

To be honest though,I can't say I like this law in Texas either. Isn't it illegal for a hospital to turn someone away becuase they have no medical insurance? If that is true,then that means they accept the fact that a person is probably going to have to make payments till the bill is paid. I wonder why thay wasn't allowed in the case of the baby in this story.

 

[Merlin1047]

It seems kind of hypocritical to me to say it's all right for the government to make a decision for someone to die,but they can't step in to say that a person should live,as in Schiavo's case. A big issue as well is,the government letting Micheal Schaivo say that his "wife" cannot even eat on her own,since she is able to swallow.

I will not get into any discussion of Michael Schaivo or the particulars of that case since that is not the point of this post and I won't go down that road as several other posts already have.

Let's stay on topic, please. The question I posed is whether it is appropriate for the federal government to involve itself as it has in ANY court case. Let's forget that it was the Schiavo case. For the purpose of my question, it does not matter what the particulars of the case are.

To be honest though,I can't say I like this law in Texas either. Isn't it illegal for a hospital to turn someone away becuase they have no medical insurance? If that is true,then that means they accept the fact that a person is probably going to have to make payments till the bill is paid. I wonder why that wasn't allowed in the case of the baby in this story.

The purpose of the Futile Care law is contained in its title. Providing care that has no ultimate benefit to the patient. It is one thing for a family to pay for care that ends up being worthless, it is another to expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for such care. People who have no financial responsibility for the decisions they make will ultimately live in a fantasy world of unreasonable hopes and expectations for improvement. They will demand care even when it is obvious that such care will have no positive outcome. But if they were faced with having to pay for care that was counter-productive, I very much doubt that their decision would be the same as when they can simply pick the pockets of the taxpayer.

 

[krisy]

I only brought up the Schiavo case because you did in your first paragraph.

I really don't know what I think about the government intervening on a regular basis in court cases. I guess some cases are extreme and sometimes rights can be ignored. I understand where everyone is coming from though,as I am not normally big on government interference in these kinds of things.

 

[freeandfun1]

The federal government has no place in state issues. I am quite upset over W's meddling in the rights of the State of Florida and I believe the Texas law is legal and again, should be left up to the state. If the citizens of Texas don't like the law, then use the system to get it overturned. I hear Kinky Freidman is running for governor!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This could have gone in any of several forums, but since my basic aim here is to criticize GW, I'll put it into the politics forum.

When Pres. Bush and the Republicans recently rushed to get the Terri Schiavo case into the federal courts, it raised several red-flag issue for me. The actions of the federal government were, in my opinion, a totally inappropriate and dangerous meddling in the court system of the state of Florida. Not only that, the actions of the President and the Congress has had the effect of another power grab for the fed and another erosion of state's rights. Is this now the wave of the future? Will every unpopular decision by a state court end up being usurped by political hacks?

Texas has a law on the books called the "Futile Care" law. The law permits a hospital to stop care for patients who cannot pay for such care if the determination is made that there is no chance that the patient in question can recover from his maladies. Without going into excessive detail, there is a substantial protocol which must be satisfied, including a requirement that the hospital housing the patient must search for another hospital willing to accept him. I believe that it is a good law and that it was carefully written to safeguard indigent patients' rights.

The article which follows documents a recent apprlicantion of the Texas Futile Care Law wherein a baby with extremely serious birth defects was taken off life support against the wishes of its mother who demanded care for the infant, but could not pay for such care. Personally, I agree with the decision and the law. If there is no hope of improvement, why should taxpayer money be spent on care that will ultimately prove not only worthless, but have the effect of simply prolonging suffering?

But here's the kicker - guess which governor of Texas signed this bill into law. If you guessed that his initials were George W. Bush, you would be exactly correct.

Now, how does Pres. Bush reconcile the Futile Care law on the one hand and the unwarranted interference in the court system in regard to the Schiavo case on the other hand?

Let's look at this issue from a different angle.

I see the liberal Democrats acting totally out of character as all of a sudden as they now embrace federalism in a case where a state court decides the life or death of an innocent without appeal.

Liberals have traditionally defended federal habeus review such as with murderers but now they won't defend this federal review for a helpless woman? What about her civil rights? All of a sudden the liberals don't think a disabled person should have her civil rights reviewed? A disabled wife whose husband has denied speech therapy for years when there are doctors who say it is possible. What about their silence about the violence against her? Liberals usually attack a husband for slapping his wife but now they are just hunky dory with the husband starving a wife to death over many long days.

The humanity of society is determined by how we treat the most vulnerable among us. For the Republicans to jump out of character on states rights in order to save a life while the Democrats jump out of character to kill a life says everything I need to know about the character and leadership of each party.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

guess this potato is too damn hot to touch for alot of you, isn't it?

 

[dilloduck]

guess this potato is too damn hot to touch for alot of you, isn't it?

That Bush has contradicted himself??-----hell it happens all the time to politicians

 

[Bonnie]

That Bush has contradicted himself??-----hell it happens all the time to politicians

But it's ONLY okay for Libs/Democrats

 

[sagegirl]

I totally agree with Merlin here. I think the Texas law, signed in by GW himself, is an excellent way to deal with these situations.

 

[dilloduck]

But it's ONLY okay for Libs/Democrats

ahhhhh the old held to a higher standard thing again---man it pisses em off when conservatives act like libs

 

[Bonnie]

Yes Merlin You are right Terri should die because Bush contradicted himself.

Okay??

 

[no1tovote4]

This could have gone in any of several forums, but since my basic aim here is to criticize GW, I'll put it into the politics forum.

When Pres. Bush and the Republicans recently rushed to get the Terri Schiavo case into the federal courts, it raised several red-flag issue for me. The actions of the federal government were, in my opinion, a totally inappropriate and dangerous meddling in the court system of the state of Florida. Not only that, the actions of the President and the Congress has had the effect of another power grab for the fed and another erosion of state's rights. Is this now the wave of the future? Will every unpopular decision by a state court end up being usurped by political hacks?

Texas has a law on the books called the "Futile Care" law. The law permits a hospital to stop care for patients who cannot pay for such care if the determination is made that there is no chance that the patient in question can recover from his maladies. Without going into excessive detail, there is a substantial protocol which must be satisfied, including a requirement that the hospital housing the patient must search for another hospital willing to accept him. I believe that it is a good law and that it was carefully written to safeguard indigent patients' rights.

The article which follows documents a recent apprlicantion of the Texas Futile Care Law wherein a baby with extremely serious birth defects was taken off life support against the wishes of its mother who demanded care for the infant, but could not pay for such care. Personally, I agree with the decision and the law. If there is no hope of improvement, why should taxpayer money be spent on care that will ultimately prove not only worthless, but have the effect of simply prolonging suffering?

But here's the kicker - guess which governor of Texas signed this bill into law. If you guessed that his initials were George W. Bush, you would be exactly correct.

Now, how does Pres. Bush reconcile the Futile Care law on the one hand and the unwarranted interference in the court system in regard to the Schiavo case on the other hand?

Nobody has answered this question, did he sign it into law or not veto it and allow it to become law? There is a difference. If the law was going to be law even if he vetoed it many Governors and Presidents will simply not do anything thus acknowledging the futility of the veto as it would be overturned, but also not giving their signature to the law showing their support for it.

Just because something became law while he was Governor doesn't mean he signed or supported the law.

 

[Merlin]

Let's stay on topic, please. The question I posed is whether it is appropriate for the federal government to involve itself as it has in ANY court case. Let's forget that it was the Schiavo case. For the purpose of my question, it does not matter what the particulars of the case are.

It is perfectly appropriate. They get into any case they want to. If they didn't, a lot of people would get very upset. After all, Federal law trumps state law.

 

[Bonnie]

Would anyone care to start a thread on Contradictions coming form the Left??????????
Probably would be extremely time consuming!!

 

[dilloduck]

Would anyone care to start a thread on Contradictions coming form the Left??????????
Probably would be extremely time consuming!!

and redundant too!

 

[Merlin1047]

Yes Merlin You are right Terri should die because Bush contradicted himself.

Okay??

No, you're not going to sidetrack me into another argument over the merits or lack therof of the Schiavo case. That discussion continues in other threads.

My point is that the federal government acted inappropriately, that Pres. Bush supports the Futile Care law on the one hand while insinuating his office into a court case on the other, that the result is an erosion of the power of the judicial branch of our government.

It is the job of the judiciary to interpret existing law. If the legislative branch does not like the decisions being handed down, they need to CHANGE THE LAW or pass new law. THAT is the appropriate method to deal with a situation like this. It is not the function of the legislative branch to decide which level of the court system will hear a particular case.

I am not lacking in sympathy for Terri Schiavo, but that is not the point of my post.

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's look at this issue from a different angle.

I see the liberal Democrats acting totally out of character as all of a sudden as they now embrace federalism in a case where a state court decides the life or death of an innocent without appeal.

Liberals have traditionally defended federal habeus review such as with murderers but now they won't defend this federal review for a helpless woman? What about her civil rights? All of a sudden the liberals don't think a disabled person should have her civil rights reviewed? A disabled wife whose husband has denied speech therapy for years when there are doctors who say it is possible. What about their silence about the violence against her? Liberals usually attack a husband for slapping his wife but now they are just hunky dory with the husband starving a wife to death over many long days.

The humanity of society is determined by how we treat the most vulnerable among us. For the Republicans to jump out of character on states rights in order to save a life while the Democrats jump out of character to kill a life says everything I need to know about the character and leadership of each party.

Pointing finger at libs and saying they're just as bad is hardly a defense for a position on this question.

And again, for the purpose of my question, the particulars of the Schiavo case are irrelevant. Those questions should be argued in the court which is assigned to hear her case.

My question was, and remains - is it appropriate for the Republican Congress and President to impose themselves into a court case in the manner they have chosen?

 

[no1tovote4]

I think they applied a portion of their balance of power in this case Merlin, that they did not overstep their bounds as written in the Constitution. They made no changes to any existing law, just made it possible for higher courts to review the case.

I don't appreciate their action as it clearly steps on State's rights, but it doesn't overstep the authority they were given by the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

From what I understand of the Texas law it applies to Terminally Ill patients. Terri isn't terminally ill. I don't see anything hypocritical in the messure.

This isnt a state v Federal issue. The state legislature acted to try to prevent Terri's death as well. The judiciary struck it down. This is a Legislative v. Judicial battle. I think its appropriate for the Federal government to interfere when the state tries to protect someones federally protected rights and is unable to.

Terri needs to be given due process. She does not have a lawyer working for her behalf so she has not had that due process. I hardly see how her due process has been kept if the husband forbids her to have an attorney even if the family fights for her behalf.